click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121002
20121010
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
in changing our policy in afghanistan to count terrorism. we're trying to prop up a government in afghanistan. couldn't terrorism requires far less troops and focuses at striking against al qaeda sweledl as well as any taliban insurjents we might need for the purpose of our fight. i believe that the draw down in afghanistan is well positioned. i'm actually an advocate of something that is more accelerated. i have been for quite some time and i believe we focus on couldn't terrorism which risks less lives. >> we're going to go back on the economy. you say you support a comprehensive solution to the deficit that includes revenues and cuts in spending. can you name one program you've eliminated while you've been in congress? >> yes the s 22. i voted this is something the pentagon did not want but there were those advocating for it. i voted against the s22 which was cut by the way. i voted on a different alternative fighter engine that was not necessary as well and that was cut. and those are examples of programs that were cut. but whey don't want to do is what my opponent says he embraces the ry
conservative as katherine made clear, there's nothing conservative about a government that prevents a woman from making her own health care decisions. governor romney talks about freedom. but freedom is the ability to determine the care you need when you need it. freedom is the ability to change jobs or start your own business without the fear of losing your health insurance. freedom is the knowledge that you'll no longer be charged more than men for the same health care. or denied affordable coverage just because you've beat cancer. and at a time when women make up nearly half the work force, and an increasing share of family bread winners, these are not just health issues or women's issues. these are economic issues that are vital and affect every family in america. they matter. when -- when a woman is the main bread winner for her family but takes home less pay for the same work, as a man does because she's a woman, that is not right. when my opponent's campaign was asked if he'd support legislation given -- giving women the tools to fight for an equal day's pay for an equal day's work,
of that nature. now, it's different whether there's a government grant, where the market power derives from political authority. and that's true of some of the essential facility cases. stadiums, stadium approvals and the like. but if the facility has become essential through market processes, which is surely the case of google, it represents success. and that firm is entitled to all the reward it can gain. now, greg and bob do a terrific job of showing why the google experience does not fit the scraps of law on essential facilities. but i think they should go further. they should deny that there's any merit to the concept at all. now, i think this is true of other parts of the paper. as i alluded to earlier, much of the paper is empirical. and i learned a lot from it really. there's a lot of detail in it. and i learned a lot. but the -- those responses and that empirical -- making the point that criticism by competitors of google's practices are just wrong on the facts. but i think that that's not enough. especially in representing the chicago school. the failings of the arguments by googl
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3